Monsanto has supported fair regulation of biotechnology
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Saturday, February 13, 1999
By Will D. Carpenter
The Jan. 8 column by Molly Ivins is an excellent example of Will Rogers'
assessment of profound opinion: "It's not what people don't know that gets
them in trouble; it's all the things they know that ain't so."
During the early 1980s and continuing to 1989, I was chairman of Monsanto
Co.'s Biotechnology Strategy Committee. Monsanto had clearly identified
biotechnology as a major corporate objective. We believed we had more than
the usual scientific and marketing issues to manage. More important, we
recognized that the largest potential stumbling block was lack of freedom to
operate because of a flawed regulatory situation that could occur.
Monsanto concluded that we could lose the freedom to operate because of one
or both of two possible situations. The first was that products could turn out to
have an adverse impact on the environment or the public. The other situation
would be a perception that there were adverse effects. Unless both were
addressed, we would not be able to capitalize on our biotechnology efforts.
History had taught us that we could go from no regulation to punitive
regulations in a short time, especially if some problem appeared, either real or
perceived. In the early 1980s, vigorous, aggressive opponents of biotechnology
were creating doomsday scenarios daily. Our approach was to ask for good,
tough, science-based regulations well in advance of products. This would
create a win-win situation. First, it would be the best way to protect the public
and the environment as well as making sure that the public had the perception
that the protection was there. The second benefit was that it would give
industry a predictable regulatory environment in which to operate.
Congress determined that no new laws or agencies were needed. The three
regulatory agencies did end up with an acceptable regulatory system. There
were the usual frustrations and debates about specifics, but compared to other
regulatory issues and considering the magnitude of the subject, it was handled
better than most.
Another aspect was that of legislative and regulatory actions of the individual
states that affected the biotechnology industry. There was a flurry of activity at
the state level. Bills were introduced and regulations and agencies were
created. If this had continued, there could have been a patchwork of state
regulations that would have caused major problems for the industry. However,
with initiative by the federal agencies, the state regulatory issues essentially went
away.
It is fascinating that Bill Lambrecht, who wrote a Dec. 27 article on Monsanto,
and Ivins both were able to ignore the fact that every science-based
organization, ranging from the National Academy of Science to the medical
profession, has addressed the issue of biotechnology and has supported the
concept of agricultural biotechnology. Moreover, the regulatory approach being
used has been supported by both Democratic and Republican administrations
and Congress for 16 years.
The speculative issues raised by Ivins about "jumping species" is very similar to
the demagoguery of Jeremy Rifkin in the 1980s. If she had bothered to check,
that issue is addressed in the regulatory requirements. If Ivins and Lambrecht
can quote from those who destroy property and those who cannot provide
data to substantiate their claims, why not quote from the world-renown
scientists, as well as those who now have the possibility of sufficient food
because of biotechnology?
The non-scientific barriers that are preventing the benefits of
biotechnology from being brought to bear are deplored by all reputable people.
There have been no mishaps, no cries for new agencies or laws. There is
science-based regulation in place. Do we deserve an "A+"? The answer is
"No."
However, I'll claim at least a "B+" rather than the "F" that Ivins and
Lambrecht would give us.
Copyright (c) 1999, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
stlnet.com |
